How do University of Richmond and Amherst compare in class size for undergraduates?

Amherst is the one that more consistently delivers very small undergraduate classes, especially early on. It is a smaller liberal arts college with no graduate student population shaping the classroom experience, and that usually means more seminars, more discussion-heavy sections, and fewer large lecture formats. University of Richmond is also known for small classes, but it is a larger university setting, so the overall feel is still somewhat broader.

At Amherst, a high share of courses are small enough that discussion is the default rather than the exception. Even in introductory subjects, students often encounter classes taught directly by professors in relatively intimate settings, and the absence of graduate programs helps keep the focus tightly on undergraduates. In practice, that usually feels like frequent participation, close reading, writing-based assignments, and professors who know students quickly.

Richmond also puts real emphasis on undergraduate teaching, and many students there do get small classes and strong access to faculty. But because it is a university with multiple schools and a somewhat larger undergraduate population, you are a bit more likely to see a mix that includes some bigger intro lectures alongside smaller discussions, labs, or breakout sections. The day-to-day experience can still be personal, just not quite as uniformly seminar-like across the board.

For the specific question about underclassmen, Amherst tends to have the edge in offering fewer big lectures and a more consistently small-class atmosphere from the start. Richmond still compares favorably to many universities, but Amherst usually feels more intensely built around the small seminar model.